Skip to main content
PMC home page
World Journal of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery logoLink to World Journal of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
. 2018 Dec 29;5(2):117–121. doi: 10.1016/j.wjorl.2018.09.004

Cochlear duct length along the outer wall vs organ of corti: Which one is relevant for the electrode array length selection and frequency mapping using Greenwood function?

Anandhan Dhanasingh 1
PMCID: PMC6617526  PMID: 31334491

Abstract

Cochlear duct length (CDL) measurement or estimation is a hot topic for various research groups in the cochlear implant (CI) field as of today. Getting the CDL along the outer wall (LW) and organ of corti (OC) is possible but considering the clinical application especially in the selection of the electrode array length and applying Greenwood's frequency function, we need to have a clear understanding on the CDL in general and as well on the Greenwood's frequency function. It is very clear from the histology images of the cochlea with straight electrode inside, that the electrode locates itself right under the basilar membrane. Also the Greenwood's frequency function involves a variable that corresponds to the CDL at the basilar membrane/organ of corti level. This brings us to conclude that the CDL at the OC is relevant for the selection of electrode array length and in applying Greenwood's frequency function. The ratio between CDL (LW) and CDL (OC) is 0.9 which is a very important number that needs to be remembered when converting CDL (LW) to CDL (OC).

Keywords: Cochlear duct length, Outer wall, Organ of corti, Greenwood frequency function, Electrode selection

Introduction

Cochlear duct length (CDL) estimation or measurement has become a hot topic in the recent times in the cochlear implant (CI) field. CDL is the length of cochlear duct measured from the natural entrance of the cochlea all the way to helicotrema. Though it makes absolute sense in knowing the CDL prior to surgery for various applications, with the understanding from the literature that every cochlea is unique and it differs in its size, shape, number of turn and as well in its anatomy,1, 2, 3 measuring/estimating the CDL at which location inside the cochlea has a big implication. The CDL can be measured following the outer bony edge of the cochlea (LW) (Fig. 1B, D),4, 5, 6 at the basilar membrane level or at the organ of corti (OC) (Fig. 1C, E) and as well at the modiolus/inner wall level (MW).7, 8, 9 Measuring/estimating the CDL at various levels inside the cochlea will give different results with CDL (LW) will be the longest, CDL (MW) will be the shortest and the CDL (OC) will be greater than CDL (MW) and smaller than the CDL (LW).9 Which of these CDLs can be applicable in the selection of correct length electrode array and anatomy based speech processor fitting by getting the patient specific cochlear frequency mapping using Greenwood function,10 needs to have a clear understanding on the basics of CDL and Greenwood function.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Showing the possibility of estimating the CDL at the LW and OC positions using the “A” value (basal turn diameter) from the pre-operative image.

This paper attempts to give an acceptable explanation especially on the difference between the CDL measured along the lateral wall and along the organ of corti and its clinical applications related to the cochlear implantation.

Material and methods

Clinical imaging is the state-of-the art in measuring the cochlear parameters in live patients. Majority agrees that measuring the basal turn diameter which is also called as “A” value of the cochlea (Fig. 1A) from the pre-operative CT image of the cochlea, is relevant in estimating the full length of the cochlear duct length.11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 Escude et al4 and Erixon et al5 have proposed mathematical equations that involve “A” value as the input in estimating the CDL(LW) position, whereas the equations proposed by Alexiades et al8 and Koch et al22 estimates the CDL(OC) position. Equation proposed by Koch et al22 is a further fine-tuning of the Alexiades's equations.8 Greenwood frequency function involves the CDL(OC) and the function itself is given in Table 1 along with the all the CDL equations proposed by various studies.

Table 1.

CDL equations proposed by various studies along with Greenwood frequency function.

Studies CDL equations
Escude et al4 CDL(LW) = 2.62 × A × loge (1+ (Ө/235))
Erixon et al5 CDL(LW) = 3.08 × A + 12.44
Alexiades et al8 CDL(OC) = 4.16 × A − 4
Koch et al22 CDL(OC) = 4.16 × A − 5.05
Greenwood et al10 F = A (10ax − k)
Open in a new tab

Where A is a constant (165.4) and k = 0.88. x is the proportion of the basilar membrane length.

Results

Fig. 1 show where exactly the CDL is being measured/estimated along the LW and along the OC. CDL(LW) follows the outer bony edge of the cochlea whereas the CDL(OC) follows the basilar membrane which is inner to the LW position. The input value for all the CDL equations given in Table 1 is the “A” value which is the basal turn diameter of the cochlea. Literature reports the range of “A” value among the human population as 7.0 mm and 10.5 mm with an average value of approximately 9.0 mm.4, 5, 6, 13

Table 2 gives a comparison between Escude's CDL(LW) and Alexiades's CDL(OC) was made for 3 different “A” values corresponding to the shortest, longest and the average value.

Table 2.

CDL(LW) and CDL(OC) measured using proposed equations from various studies for three different “A” values.

“A” value (mm) CDL(LW) (mm)
Escude et al		 CDL(LW) (mm)
Erixon et al		 CDL(OC) (mm)
Alexiades et al		 CDL(OC) (mm)
Koch et al		 Ratio between Alexiades (OC) and Escude (LW)
7.5 (min)
9.0 (avg)
10.5 (max)		 30.9
37.1
43.3		 35.5
40.2
44.8		 27.2
33.4
39.7		 26.2
32.4
38.6		 0.9
0.9
0.9
Open in a new tab

From Table 1, it is inferred that the CDL(OC) measures 10% shorter than the CDL(LW). The histology section of the human cochlea with the straight lateral wall electrode inside, at the mid-modiolar section (Fig. 2A) shows the position of the straight lateral wall electrode right under the basilar membrane or organ of corti (OC). The high resolution micro-CT image in the cochlear view (Fig. 2B) shows the electrode lying slightly inside the bony edge because of the spiral ligament that lines the outer bony edge (LW) and that separates the electrode from touching the outer bony wall.20

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Histology section at a mid-modiolar human cochlear section showing the position of the straight lateral wall electrode right under the basilar membrane (A). Micro-CT image (Courtesy: Prof. Ilmari Pyykko, Tampere, Finland) shows the position of the electrode well inside from the bony edge of the cochlea (B).

Application of the Greenwood frequency function involves CDL(OC). Just for illustration, let's assume CDL(OC) as 35 mm and with unrolling the cochlea, the round window entrance would take up the zero position and the helicotrema (the most apical portion) as the 35 mm. The frequency at any specific location inside the cochlea is calculated as shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Application of Greenwood function in finding the corresponding frequency at specific insertion depth inside the cochlea.

Taking the CDLOC and using Greenwood frequency function, the frequency map corresponding to any particular sized cochlea can be made. Fig. 4 shows the Greenwood frequency map for three different cochlear sizes with a 20 mm long straight electrode underneath it. “0” at the CDL (mm) corresponds to the RW/cochlear opening. One length electrode array will give different insertion depths covering different frequency range in different sized cochlea.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Greenwood's Frequency map for 3 different sized cochleae with one electrode array length underneath it. Also given is the angular insertion depth (AID) (°). Electrode array length of 20 mm is at an AID of 490° in the smallest cochlea (A), whereas the same electrode array length would cover an AID of 300° in the biggest cochlea (C).

Discussion

Literature teaches us that the CDL(LW) is 10%–12% longer than the CDL(OC).6 This is exactly seen from Table 2 with the ratio between CDL(OC) to CDL(LW) is 0.9 which in other words CDL(OC) is 10% shorter than the CDL(LW). The reason for just considering the Escude's and Alexiades's equation in finding the ratio between CDL(OC) and CDL(LW) is that these two equations are the root from which several fine-tuned equations came up. Kawano et al9 measured the CDL at the level of OC and as well at the LW from eight cochlear samples and the ratio between the CDLOC to CDLLW came around 0.87 ≈ 0.9. For argument, a sample number of eight may be considered too small to cover the complete population but at least it gives a rough estimation on the difference between CDL(LW) and CDL(OC). Converting the Escude's CDLLW to CDLOC can now be simply done by multiplying CDLLW by a factor of 0.87 ≈ 0.9. The “A” value ranges from the shortest length of 7.5 mm to a longest length of 10.5 mm.4, 5, 6, 13 The CDLOC which varies between 28 mm and 39 mm is in-line with what was already published.7, 9 It makes absolute sense that CDLLW of 43 mm for an “A” value of 10.5 mm as given in Table 2 cannot be used in the electrode array length selection as the longest electrode array available in the market is only 31.5 mm which is designed to give the maximum angular insertion depth. It may be relatively easier for the radiologist to detect the outer bony edge of the cochlea from the pre-operative image, especially the spline method proposed by Würfel et al6 but understanding the difference between the CDL(LW) and CDL(OC) is very essential if the proposed method is to be used for electrode array selection clinically.

The other issue with the CDL(LW) is that it cannot be used in combination with Greenwoods frequency function as the Greenwood frequency function uses the length at the basilar membrane level.10 Greenwoods frequency function is F = A × (10ax-k) where ‘x’ is expressed as the proportion to the total basilar membrane length. Fig. 3, Fig. 4 attempts to explain how the Greenwood frequency function is to be used when finding the frequency at the corresponding intra-cochlear location and as well for various cochlear sizes respectively.

Advanced surgical pre-planninig tool like OTOPLAN (www.otoplan.ch) is now CE marked and is available to be clinically used in the application of “A” value measurement. As more and more partial deaf candidates are being implanted with CI, it could be highly beneficial if the electrode array length is selected based on the patient's residual hearing level so that the acoustic hearing is not disturbed by the electrode's physical presence. Also it is important to understand how a different electrode array length will contribute to the differences in the angular insertion depth in different sized cochleae.

Conclusion

Estimating the CDLOC is relevant in selecting the correct lateral wall electrode array length and as well in the application of Greenwood frequency function. As the CDL topic is very sensitive in terms of making errors, researchers should get a good understanding on the difference between CDL(LW) and CDL(OC).

Conflict of interest

Author is an employee at MED-EL GmbH Austria at the time of writing this article.

Acknowledgement

Special thanks to Dr. Claude Jolly (MED-EL) for his valuable discussions on the CDL topic in general.

Edited by Xin Jin

Footnotes

Peer review under responsibility of Chinese Medical Association.

References

  • 1.Rask-Andersen H., Liu W., Erixon E. Human cochlea: anatomical characteristics and their relevance for cochlear implantation. Anat Rec(Hoboken) 2012;295:1791–1811. doi: 10.1002/ar.22599. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Meng J., Li S., Zhang F., Li Q., Qin Z. Cochlear size and shape variability and implications in cochlear implantation surgery. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37:1307–1313. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Biedron S., Westhofen M., Ilgner J. On the number of turns in human cochleae. Otol Neurotol. 2009;30:414–417. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181977b8d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Escudé B., James C., Deguine O., Cochard N., Eter E., Fraysse B. The size of the cochlea and predictions of insertion depth angles for cochlear implant electrodes. Audiol Neurootol. 2006;11(Suppl 1):27–33. doi: 10.1159/000095611. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Erixon E., Rask-Andersen H. How to predict cochlear length before cochlear implantation surgery. Acta Otolaryngol. 2013;133:1258–1265. doi: 10.3109/00016489.2013.831475. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Würfel W., Lanfermann H., Lenarz T., Majdani O. Cochlear length determination using Cone Beam Computed Tomography in a clinical setting. Hear Res. 2014;316:65–72. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2014.07.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hardy M. The length of the organ of Corti in man. Am J Anat. 1938;62:291–311. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Alexiades G., Dhanasingh A., Jolly C. Method to estimate the complete and two-turn cochlear duct length. Otol Neurotol. 2015;36:904–907. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000620. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kawano A., Seldon H.L., Clark G.M. Computer-aided three-dimensional reconstruction in human cochlear maps: measurement of the lengths of organ of Corti, outer wall, inner wall, and Rosenthal's canal. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1996;105:701–709. doi: 10.1177/000348949610500906. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Greenwood D.D. A cochlear frequency-position function for several species--29 years later. J Acoust Soc Am. 1990;87:2592–2605. doi: 10.1121/1.399052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Koch R.W., Ladak H.M., Elfarnawany M., Agrawal S.K. Measuring cochlear duct length - a historical analysis of methods and results. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;46:19. doi: 10.1186/s40463-017-0194-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Rivas A., Cakir A., Hunter J.B. Automatic cochlear duct length estimation for selection of cochlear implant electrode arrays. Otol Neurotol. 2017;38:339–346. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001329. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Liu Y.K., Qi C.L., Tang J. The diagnostic value of measurement of cochlear length and height in temporal bone CT multiplanar reconstruction of inner ear malformation. Acta Otolaryngol. 2017;137:119–126. doi: 10.1080/00016489.2016.1221132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Deep N.L., Howard B.E., Holbert S.O., Hoxworth J.M., Barrs D.M. Measurement of cochlear length using the 'A' value for cochlea basal diameter: a feasibility study. Cochlear Implants Int. 2017;18:226–229. doi: 10.1080/14670100.2017.1292689. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Johnston J.D., Scoffings D., Chung M. Computed tomography estimation of cochlear duct length can predict full insertion in cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37:223–228. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000955. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mistrík P., Jolly C. Optimal electrode length to match patient specific cochlear anatomy. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2016;133(Suppl 1):S68–S71. doi: 10.1016/j.anorl.2016.05.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Thong J.F., Low D., Tham A., Liew C., Tan T.Y., Yuen H.W. Cochlear duct length-one size fits all? Am J Otolaryngol. 2017;38:218–221. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2017.01.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Venail F., Mathiolon C., Menjot de Champfleur S. Effects of electrode array length on frequency-place mismatch and speech perception with cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol. 2015;20:102–111. doi: 10.1159/000369333. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Franke-Trieger A., Jolly C., Darbinjan A., Zahnert T., Mürbe D. Insertion depth angles of cochlear implant arrays with varying length: a temporal bone study. Otol Neurotol. 2014;35:58–63. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Franke-Trieger A., Mürbe D. Estimation of insertion depth angle based on cochlea diameter and linear insertion depth: a prediction tool for the CI422. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;272:3193–3199. doi: 10.1007/s00405-014-3352-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Connor S.E., Bell D.J., O'Gorman R., Fitzgerald-O'Connor A. CT and MR Imaging cochlear distance measurements may predict cochlear implant length required for a 360 degrees insertion. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30:1425–1430. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A1571. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Koch R.W., Elfarnawany M., Zhu N., Ladak H.M., Agrawal S.K. Evaluation of cochlear duct length computations using synchrotron radiation phase-contrast imaging. Otol Neurotol. 2017;38:e92–e99. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from World Journal of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery are provided here courtesy of Chinese Medical Association

RESOURCES